You're going to laugh when I tell you I'm looking forward to this movie:

Let me get this obligatory link out of the way, which should explain to anyone new to this blog why they're inexplicably laughing right now. In short: I've been opposed to rebooting the Star Trek franchise from the beginning, and the last two movies in the new continuity have done nothing to convince me that this was a good idea. What I like about the trailer for Star Trek Beyond is that it doesn't even pretend to be Star Trek anymore, and that's really all it takes to get me to like this reboot.

At this point, I'm a little numb to the flaws of the reboot universe, because I've moved past trying to rationalize it as canon. It isn't canon. If you claim your reboot is an alternate timeline, then I expect to see an identical universe up to the point where the timelines divide, and I expect an alternate version of events that follows logically from whatever changed history. Star Trek 2009 failed to deliver on both those points. Star Trek Into Darkness added insult to injury by remaking Wrath of Khan, as though the whole point of throwing away 50 years of continuity was to try to improve on the one movie that basically any Trek fan will tell you doesn't need any improvement. On their own, these two films are flawed but highly enjoyable sci-fi action flicks, but they have no business masquerading as an alternate timeline. Paying lip service to the Star Trek name does not make one worthy of it.

Star Trek Beyond seems to acknowledge that, or at least the trailer does. Advertisements for the last two movies seemed to hint at the kinds of philosophical questions and moral choices that characterize Star Trek, providing a false hope that these films would be as thought-provoking and introspective amidst all the action as you would expect of Star Trek. This new trailer does no such thing. The transporter looks cool. The aliens look weird. Stuff blows up real good. There's action and comedy and suspense, but nothing too emotional or thinky, and the characters just happen to wear Starfleet uniforms. The music is loud and raucous with vocals, in contrast with the dynamic orchestral music that usually accompanies a Star Trek trailer. Heck, you'd think the movie's name was Beyond if it weren't for the tiny Star Trek logo fading in above it at the very end.

At the same time, there are little signs that this film might be a step in the right direction for the reboot. The uniforms have been updated and appear more like uniforms than costumes; the actors look the part even more than before. There are aliens we've never seen before, meaning we may finally get to watch the crew make first contact and develop relationships with a new species or two. Character interactions seem organic, like these characters have real personalities and aren't simply there to move the plot forward. The dialogue sounds like some artistic thought went into it, a refreshing change from the platitudes and clumsy references of the last two movies. It appears that the female alien may be one of the main characters, and she goes the entire trailer without screaming or disrobing. I'm pretty sure they're going to destroy the Enterprise in this one, if the swarms of whatevers smashing through the hull are any indication, which hopefully means the next movie will feature a ship that doesn't look like a balloon animal. The fact that there are swarms of whatevers instead of another huge warship gives me hope that the primary conflict of this film won't revolve around trying to outgun yet another impossibly strong opponent.

It's nice to look forward to Star Trek again, even—or especially—if the chances of it being actual Star Trek are slim to none.

I grew up watching Star Trek. My first love was The Next Generation, but after seeing nearly every episode of every series and being old enough to examine them more objectively, I've also found a great love or appreciation for The Original Series, The Animated Series, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise—in other words, all of them. Each show has its ups and downs, but the one constant is an exploration of the human condition that makes Star Trek unlike any other franchise. The compelling characters and cool technology alone would have been enough to win me over, but it's that penchant for raising questions with no easy answer, and that optimism that humanity's future can be as bright as we choose to make it, that makes Star Trek as close to my heart as you can get without causing a medical emergency.

Recently, it was announced that a new Star Trek series will be coming to television in a little more than a year. I want to be excited, but I'm wary of the involvement of so many people responsible for the 2009 franchise reboot. I've written extensively about how J.J. Abrams' vision of the final frontier eschews so much of what makes Star TrekStar Trek, so I'm not sure what my worst-case scenario is here: an awful new series in the Prime timeline that makes me angry for all the same reasons the reboot does, or an awesome new series in the Abramsverse that's better than any other Trek. So, with basically no details available other than "there will be a new Star Trek series," my imagination is running wild with best-case scenarios instead.

As much as I enjoy space battles and fight sequences, I feel like Star Trek was already starting to put action ahead of introspection by the time J.J. Abrams took over. Archer defended Earth from annihilation. Picard did the same in two of the movies. Sisko went to war against the Dominion. Janeway made enemies with practically everyone in the Delta quadrant. The Star Trek universe has been on red alert for most of the last 20 years. Let's scale back on the armed conflicts for a while. Mortal peril on a huge scale is fine from time to time, but drama can come from so many more places.

I'd like to see the next Trek return to the franchise's exploratory roots. I'm not necessarily talking about seeking out new life and new civilizations; the universe is already plenty full of strange new worlds we've barely explored. In fact, I'd rather see more of the one-off aliens from previous series and flesh them out the way DS9 fleshed out the Cardassians and Bajorans. What are the Bynars up to? Is the Federation still getting a piece of the action from Sigma Iota II? What about the more established races that only appeared in one series, such as the Breen, the Talaxians, and the Denobulans? Star Trek doesn't need to visit the uncharted reaches of space to find new territory to explore.

How about this: We set the next Trek in the Prime timeline sometime after the events of Nemesis, and (spoiler) after Romulus has been destroyed for the 2009 reboot. No continuity headaches like you'd have with a prequel or interquel, and we could acknowledge NuTrek without trying to build a new Trek empire upon its slapdash foundation. The show would follow the exploits of the crew of a midsize courier ship—a change of pace from the warships and deep-space exploration vessels we're used to. There'd definitely be room for space combat and encounters with the unknown, but the ship's primary mission would be to ferry cargo and people from place to place within known space. That might sound dull on paper, but so does spending 75 years getting home from the Delta Quadrant or hanging out on the same space station for seven years. Limitations give a story more focus, and it's the story you tell within the framework you have that counts.

There are numerous possibilities for a courier ship. Strange cargo. Intriguing guests. Rendezvous with other ships. Time spent on a planet's surface at the beginning or end of a trip. Bizarre anomalies along the way. And let's not forget the places we can go with the holodeck. Really, it'd be like any other Trek, just with a different how or why driving the story.

I'd also like to see an exceptionally diverse cast. The original Star Trek pushed cultural and racial boundaries with the inclusion of such characters as Uhura, Chekov, and Sulu, allowing them to be positive role models for groups of people who had too often been villainized or stereotyped on American television. Each subsequent Star Trek, with the arguable exception of ENT, has found new ways to be inclusive with its uniquely diverse cast. It's not only a tradition to shake things up; it's almost an obligation. The makeup of your main cast says as much about your show as the individual episodes do, and any show that calls itself Star Trek needs characters that challenge viewers to look at the world in a different way.

If it were up to me, the captain would be a woman. And, equally importantly, she would be an alien. Bolian or Andorian, maybe; somebody blue. The Federation consists of more than humans and dudes, but it's not often enough that you see that reinforced on screen. TOS notwithstanding, the average ratio is 1 woman for every 3 men in the main cast of any given Star Trek, and I'd like to change it to a 50/50 split. That's not feminism; that's equality.

From a narrative perspective, aliens are a great way to explore controversial issues without outright offending viewers who feel strongly about those issues in a real-world context. One of the biggest social conflicts in this country today is about how sexual preference ties in with politics and morality. It's been established that Bolians are polyamorous, with co-husbands and co-wives, and that Andorians are passionate about a great many things; I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the captain could be bisexual. Star Trek doesn't need to take sides to make an impact on society; posing a question or presenting a situation that solicits a reaction from the viewer is all it takes to start a conversation, and there's a divide in this country that won't end until we stop yelling at each other and start talking about it.

In my mind, this next Star Trek needs to stay culturally relevant to survive, and it needs to ruffle a few feathers. People who never used to care about Star Trek flocked to see the 2009 reboot as well as Into Darkness, and now the franchise is poised to reach a broader audience than ever before. Listen to people's water-cooler conversations and make episodes that relate to what people are already talking about, but get people thinking critically about those things. Don't play it safe; challenge the norm and get people to think critically about things they aren't talking about, too.

Consider the incredible buzz generated by Bruce Jenner, now Caitlyn Jenner. Gender identity is in the news, but it's often sensationalized and still widely misunderstood. What kind of impact would a well-written transgender character have on the viewer? Especially if the character were to transition a few seasons into the show, after the viewer has gotten to know them. All too often we pass judgment on a whole person because of a single label, before knowing anything else about that person. You can love a person and hate one of their labels, or you could love the label and hate the person. People are complex, and I want this new Trek to make people think about whether they're reacting to the person or the label.

Of course, racial diversity would be important. We've never had a fully Hispanic main character on Star Trek. We've also never had an overtly Middle-Eastern main character (Julian Bashir's heritage is merely implied) or a Korean character—and given that Star Trek started out as a bright vision of what the future might look like, I would love to see someone from North Korea or Iran on the bridge as an equal, their country's political conflicts far behind them. We've also been short on Canadians and Australians, and I would be totally fine if the next Star Trek launched without a single American on the bridge. That's not anti-American sentiment; that's the kind of diversity I expect from an intergalactic organization that recruits people from all over the planet, let alone from the 150+ other planets in the Federation. Maybe the one American could be Hawaiian.

There should be plenty of aliens as well. A Tellarite engineer, perhaps, or a Caitan science officer. A Xindi-Humanoid doctor or a Ba'ku first officer. A quartermaster from one of the countless unnamed races we've seen walking around in the background. There's a range of possibilities. I'd like to see a mix of ugly and beautiful aliens, aggressive and passive species—aliens whose cultures and traditions compliment and clash with the rest of the crew in interesting ways.

Other characters I'd like to see:

Someone with a physical or developmental disability who is every bit as valuable a crew member as anyone else. If Starfleet can have a blind engineer, there's certainly room for a deaf navigator or a transporter chief with high-functioning autism. The 2010 US census reported that 19% of the population had a disability of some kind; that's almost 1 in 5. How many television characters can you name who have a disability?

Someone age 60 or older (in Earth years, anyhow) who, again, is every bit as valuable a crew member as anyone else. I've noticed a trend in movies especially that the actors keep getting younger (compare the original Star Wars trilogy with the prequels, for example), and that anything featuring older actors puts a big focus on their characters being old (Last Vegas, Rocky Balboa, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and so forth). Humans on Star Trek have been shown to live well into their second century, and some alien races have mind-boggling longevity. Let's see a ship's counselor whose wisdom and experience matter more than the number of arthritis jokes he can make.

A traditional conservative, preferably one of the younger crew members. I remember a time when social, political, and religious issues were a matter of debate, where you could disagree with someone but still be friends. That's changed over the last few years, at least as far as I can tell. Conservatism has become synonymous with ignorance and bigotry; either you keep your opinions to yourself, or you open your mouth and be labeled an idiot or a monster. No middle ground. Just as people with disabilities and transgender people need good role models and positive representation on television, so too do people who believe in returning to ways that worked well before or maintaining the stability of what we have. And on a personal note, I'm tired of seeing every. character. on. television. jump right into the sack with their romantic interest du jour after the first date; it would be incredibly refreshing to see someone cultivate a close personal relationship without immediate physical intimacy—and because they choose to, not because it builds romantic tension.

The next Trek stands to be as pivotal a series as The Original Series if it can tap into the zeitgeist, do things that no other show on television is doing, and transform the way we look at our world. Do an episode that speaks to the current refugee crisis, but with Romulans escaping the destruction of Romulus. Explore the climate change debate with an episode about a planet being terraformed. Encounter a species whose government has adopted educational policies not unlike Common Core, and have the crew work through a crisis situation with aliens who, for better or for worse, all have identical training.

At the same time, make meaningful connections with the rest of the Star Trek universe, and take every opportunity to fix mistakes and develop ideas and plot threads left dangling in other series. I want a resolution to the TNG episode "Conspiracy" that brings back the parasites we suspiciously never heard anything about again. I want a holodeck episode where we get to see some of the Romulan War that was teased in the last season of Enterprise. I also want a line from one of the characters about how a lot of the holoprograms of that era are notorious for getting the details wrong, placing events farther in the future than they really were, and having historical figures die or break up with their loved ones who actually lived long, prosperous lives and settled down to raise a family—subtly correcting some of the biggest problems with the final episode of Enterprise. I want to meet a very old Joanna McCoy, daughter of Dr. Leonard McCoy, and have her spin some yarns that shed some light on her father's backstory. I want an episode that makes it abundantly clear that NuTrek is actually an alternate universe, and not an altered timeline that's inconsistent with so much of established Star Trek history. Heck, if you really want to fix continuity problems, establish that Enterprise and NuTrek are in one universe, and all the rest of Star Trek is in another.

No matter what this next Trek looks like, I'll give it a shot. I only hope the people making it have the kind of passion for the franchise and thoughtful approach that will do justice to Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future.

So wait. You're telling me that Star Wars: Episode VII, Ghostbusters III, Indiana Jones 5, and Beetlejuice 2 are all real movies that are happening or likely to happen in the next few years? Look, I'm all for a sequel if there's a good story to be told, but I think everybody missed the boat here. If we've learned anything from the likes of Star Wars: Episode I, Indiana Jones 4, and Terminator III, it's that sequels made 10+ years after the last installment consistently fail to resemble the movies they're following (which is occasionally advantageous; just ask Men in Black III or Rocky Balboa). More to the point, I'm concerned about this apparent resurgence of interest in continuing film franchises where half the people involved in the original film are either dead or of retirement age.You had all of the '90s, guys. This isn't some long-lost parent you reconnected with in the twilight years of their life; these are properties that have happily been in the public consciousness for decades, enjoying continuous merchandising and no end to the books and comics and video games that have continued the story you could've been telling on film this whole time. I don't pretend to know how long these filmmakers have been trying to make sequels to these films, but I have to imagine at least one of these planning sessions went something like, "Jeez, Harrison Ford's getting up there, isn't he? Guess we'd better start making sequels again before he's too old to lift a whip or a blaster. You know, I'd completely forgotten he was still acting until I saw a few minutes of Air Force One on TV last night. That was only from a couple years ago, right? He looks great!"There might be hope for Star Wars: Episode VII, which is being brought to us by the very same director who brought us the last two Star Wars movies (Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness). Otherwise, I'm skeptical. Unless the people involved—new and old—profoundly understand both what makes the originals good and how to effectively pick up with a story some 10, 20, even 30 years later, I think I'd rather save my money and catch Joe Dirt 2 whenever it arrives on Netflix.

"General bitterness commentary." That's how one of my friends has described my recent creative work. It's true, you know.

I've always been something of a perfectionist, so complaining about things that are less-than-perfect comes naturally to me. Still, I can do more than complain. I prefer to do more than complain. I used to be a very laid-back, happy-go-lucky sort of guy. Humor used to flow easily into my writing. What happened to me?

Perhaps a better question is, "What happened to the world around me?"

Anybody who knew me in elementary, middle, or high school and has seen me even remotely recently could probably tell you I really haven't changed much. I'm taller, wider, and beardier, but still a theatrical goofball with an overactive imagination and a cabinet full of Spaghetti-O's. I'm still a terrible backseat gamer, a goody two-shoes who can barely lie to keep a birthday party a secret, and a squeamish liability at a horror movie. I have the same lack of fashion sense (thankfully I'm through my sweatpants-in-summer phase), essentially the same hairstyle (with a few exceptions, like the floofy ridiculousness featured on my first driver's license), and the same penchant for playfully flipping other people's ponytails and pigtails whenever they're within reach (long hair is magical). I'm not absolutely identical to the me who walked into his first day of fourth grade and threw up on the floor, but I'm not too far off.

I also tend to be more forthcoming about personal information than I should be. Maybe I should work on that.

The more I think about what I've been writing, the more I'm realizing what the root of my bitterness is. Everything that makes me happy is being systematically distorted into something that makes me unhappy. No doubt there's more to it than that, but I cope better with Big Life Stuff and the stress of being a so-called "grown up" when my sources of entertainment function as escapism, and not something to be escaped from.

I've stated before that it usually takes time for me to warm up to change. I am not instinctively opposed to it, but I don't often see the need for it. Don't fix it if it ain't broke; make it better, not just different; that sort of thing.

Over the last several years, I've watched my three favorite entertainment franchises--Star Trek, Metroid, and Mega Man—veer off toward the boundaries of what I'll tolerate as a fan. I've endured an endless parade of website redesigns that seem to cater more to the people designing them than the people using them—Facebook, YouTube, Gmail, Pandora, and Blogger have undergone everything from minor tweaks to major overhauls, inevitably replacing something I love with something that annoys me. I've seen more and more large corporations—Capcom, Nintendo, Microsoft, Borders—make decisions that call into question whether they know anything about their consumers.

I've witnessed geek culture get absorbed into the mainstream with The Big Bang Theory, 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons, and Mega Man 10's Easy Mode; now I'm just like everybody else, and my geek cred means nothing because we're all geeks now. I've watched the fan community create so many mashups of Firefly, Zelda, Star Wars, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doctor Whothat there's barely any meaning left to them—what was once a charming novelty has become a mass-produced commodity. I've heard more and more music on the radio that hooks me with a great instrumental introduction and sends me away screaming when the vocals come in.

Too much change. Too little improvement.

And too much time spent agonizing over the few major merits in a sea of incredible flaws. If only they had fixed this, or left out that, we could've had something more amazing than anything before it. I miss the days when I could simply like or dislike something without deliberating over the pros and cons. It's draining to write about the things I love when they're also the things I hate, but the things I merely like usually don't get me fired up enough to talk about them unprompted.

Thus, you have my general bitterness commentary. However, if I can get off my soapbox, I'm sure I can also get out of my...um...complainy pants. Bitterness boxers? I should stop gravitating toward clothing.

Effective as soon as I feel like it, this blog will be taking a more positive direction. I still reserve the right to complain, but I'd like to do so in a manner that's more humorous and thoughtful than it is straight-up cathartic. I feel more like myself when writing with a smile on my face, and I haven't done enough of that lately. I take requests, so let me know if there's anything you'd like to see.

I wonder how much thought really goes into the decisions made by the entertainment industry's current generation of policy-makers. From where I'm sitting, the prevailing attitude seems to be, "We're doing things this way, because we said so. There's no need to consider our consumers, because we know what's best for them. They've supported us in the past, therefore we have their guaranteed support for the future. Our happiness is their happiness."

Example: Nintendo is identifying videos on YouTube that feature Nintendo-created content (e.g.: "Let's Play" videos of Mario and Zelda games) and is collecting any advertising revenue on those videos that otherwise would've gone to the video creator. All discussions of "Fair Use" aside, has Nintendo considered the ramifications of their actions?

Yes, this allows Nintendo to make a profit while protecting its intellectual property. But what happens when reviewers stop posting video reviews of Nintendo games, claiming it's not worth the effort to review something (no matter how good the game may be) when they can't make money off the video? What happens when fans whose enthusiasm for Nintendo is infectious—often inspiring their subscribers to go out and buy more Nintendo games—stop making "Let's Play" videos because they're afraid of having a copyright strike on their account? What happens to fan loyalty when Nintendo, in effect, starts stealing the ad money that allows its biggest fans to avoid working a traditional job? Is the obvious gain worth the potential loss of your fanbase? Or was that not part of the discussion to begin with?

Yet another example: YouTube is forcing its users to switch to the new "One Channel" design on June 5th, citing an increased focus on content and the ability to reach a broader audience. It's telling that one of the top four autocomplete options for a Google search on the topic is, "youtube one channel sucks." I say this every time YouTube, or Facebook, or anybody at all introduces a so-called "upgrade": Make it better, not different. One Channel strips away much of the individuality of the old channel designs, introduces obnoxious new restrictions for making a channel banner that has to double as a background (depending on how you're viewing the site), and leaves little or no way to keep things THAT WORKED PERFECTLY WELL arranged as they were before. One Channel is targeted at a very specific type of YouTube user, which is great as an option when choosing how best to set up your channel for yourself and your audience. You might be the biggest game in town, YouTube, but you're not the only one—and especially with Nintendo making all those copyright claims, it's not outside the realm of possibility that gamers such as myself might find a more user-friendly site to call home.I have to wonder whether anybody at Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, or anywhere else is thinking about the people keeping them in business as they pave the roads no one wants to drive on. And I have to wonder what kind of consumers we are to let them get away with it.

Jeb Bush, former governor of the state of Florida, calling out his own political party for being an "anti-everything" party.

"All too often we’re associated with being 'anti' everything. Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker, and the list goes on and on and on. Many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidates even though they share our core beliefs, because those voters feel unloved, unwanted and unwelcome in our party."

Perhaps it's because I don't follow politics, and hear about current events most often from my more liberal friends than my more conservative ones, but what Jeb Bush describes here very closely matches what I've been led to believe over the last year or so. I noted that this last Presidential election seemed to be especially vicious, not just between the candidates but across the entire country, and I wonder whether this "anti-everything" notion—whether it's true, or merely perceived to be true—might be largely to blame. It's easier to argue intelligently over differing opinions than opposite opinions. "I prefer Star Wars" goes a lot farther with me than "You're an idiot and Star Trek is stupid" does. From what I've heard, it sounds like some of these opinions have morphed from personal convictions into political tactics aimed at disrupting the current administration from getting anything done.

Again, I don't follow politics. I'm registered Independent, do my research when the big election rolls around every four years, and vote for the candidate I think will do the best job for the country, not just me personally. The rest of the time, unless somebody else brings it to my attention, I am blissfully unaware of the ways of Washington. But every time I do hear or read about politics, it's the same old song: We're not making any progress. We can't agree on new policies, and we can't agree about the old ones. Politicians keep making offensive, embarrassing statements that show how out-of-touch they are with the other side, if not reality itself. It doesn't sound like we're compromising and working for our nation's future; it sounds like we're relying on sheer numbers of people who inherently agree with us to make anything happen.

"...we need to get re-acquainted with the notion that the relationships that really matter are not made through Twitter and social media. Real relationships take time to grow, and they begin with a genuine interest in the stories, dreams and challenges harbored within each of us."

1.) Having the same man in charge of Star Warsand Star Trek creates a conflict of interest. This is like hiring the same marketing director for Pepsi and Coke. This is like employing the same head chef for the test kitchens of Burger King and McDonald's. This is like...I dunno, casting Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool and Hal Jordan.

2.) I think I've made my opinion of J.J. Abrams prettydarnclear. Those are hyperlinks, kids; don't be shy to click 'em.

3.) Star Trek (2009) was pretty much a Star Wars movie anyhow, so this should be a perfect fit.

I don't have it in me to really discuss this further. J.J. Abrams just makes me angry, and there is no one in Hollywood who makes me angry just by seeing their name attached to something. Disappointed, sure; uninterested in seeing the movie, sure. Angry? No. He's officially become the face of sci-fi for "the modern generation," and from what I've seen of his work, that means I can look forward to a few decades of movies so flashy that they almost make you forget how contrived the script is, how abrasive and unlikable the characters are, and how little the heart and style of a franchise that's not your own really matter.

But you know what? It's not just J.J. Abrams. It's the likes of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, too. You know—the guys who co-wrote and/or produced The Legend of Zorro, Transformers, Cowboys and Aliens, and Star Trek? I'm sure you remember those movies—fancy action sequences, major plot points that get minimal or no explanation, comedic digressions that completely break the flow of the movie, characters who aren't so much complex heroes as walking personalities that save the day when the story calls for it...

The fact that Orci and Kurtzman did Watchmen, and I liked Watchmen, would seem to throw off the curve here. Except I didn't care much for the source material (respected it, but didn't like it—too dark and gritty for my tastes, for one thing), and the movie was a direct translation the graphic novel, minus almost everything I didn't like about it. In other words, the script was already written for them, and they just edited out some parts I wasn't so keen on; I already knew the story, so I could fill in any plot holes with what I remembered from the book; and the characters in Watchmen are supposed to be less-than-ideal heroes.

So maybe I'm not angry that J.J. Abrams is directing Star Wars. Maybe I'm angry that Star Wars—like Watchmen, for Orci and Kurtzman—is the kind of thing he should've been doing all along. And I can't help but think that someone else would've been tapped to direct Star Trek if Star Wars had gotten to Abrams first.